Michael Moore has advice for the Democratic Party

[marksman]

Huh?

 

[applecorped]

I'm not saying that Gore would have been a legitimate president either. A majority of 51% or even 99% shouldn't have more legitimacy in imposing their will on others than a minority of 49% or 1%.

There is a point up to which it is tolerable, though, and I wouldn't be ruining my life to fight just a minor tyranny. But this country has passed my threshold in the last decade. Thus my tax resistance and other civil disobedience.

Mushrooms?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

He doesn't pay tax.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Al Gore did win in 2000.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-Gore as I am anti-Bush (maybe even more so in light of his global warming bull), but to say that Bush honestly won Florida you have to do all sorts of creative statistics about Buchanan being a super-star in just the precincts with the confusing ballots.

And of course the real reason why Bush didn't win in 2000, which you won't hear from the mainstream media - nobody won Florida. The Supremes decided the election, not the votes. If only Florida's electoral votes were invalidated due to voting irregularities, or split evenly based on popular vote, Gore would be president. If there was a full statewide recount or a full re-vote, Gore would be president.

Bush won Florida. It was very, very, very close, and the Sore/Loserman team pushed very hard for every possible different way of interpreting any ballots that were the least bit ambiguous to tilt the vote in their favor. No matter how they counted them, Bush still came out slightly ahead. If the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in and said “Enough!”, they would still be counting ballots today in Florida, and still be trying to find some way to twist them in Gore's favor.

Florida is a “winner-take-all” state. That means that whichever candidate wins the majority in that state gets all of the state's delegates. And that was Bush. That's the rules under which this election was conducted. There is no point in arguing “If only Florida's electoral votes were…split evenly based on popular vote”, any more than there is any point in wishing for Florida to have been denied its rightful say in the Electoral College under the pretense of having its votes “invalidated due to voting irregularities”.

Bush won, fair and square, according to the rules by which this election took place. Many of the more pathetic Gore supporters are still angry because they weren't allowed to change the rules late in the game, in order to change the outcome — or at least that the degree to which they were allowed to tamper with the rules was not sufficient to change the outcome. It's way past time to let this one go.

Those who wish to accuse Bush of “stealing the election” would surely have thought differently if it was Gore who had prevailed under the exact same rules, and it was Bush's supporters who were arguing that the rules should be changed on-the-fly in Bush's favor.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Does Mr Moore still think there is something 'fishy' about explosions in the World Trade Centre?

 

[Oliver]

Does Mr Moore still think there is something 'fishy' about explosions in the World Trade Centre?

He actually still talks about nothing else.

 

[Alex Libman]

If the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in and said “Enough!”, they would still be counting ballots today in Florida [...]

Look, I don't have a dog in this race - to me Bush and Gore are two heads of the same monster. But in a state-wide recount, Gore wins, in spite of all the voting problems that have cost him many times more votes than the margin of victory. And no one could possibly claim that a run-off election, with just the two on the ballot and no Nader, would have resulted in anything but a definitive Gore victory.

Note the publication dates. Bush would have had a very lame presidency if the state-wide recount results had been made clear to the public sooner. Thankfully 9/11 happened just in time...

 

[Kestrel]

Bush won Florida. It was very, very, very close, and the Sore/Loserman team pushed very hard for every possible different way of interpreting any ballots that were the least bit ambiguous to tilt the vote in their favor. No matter how they counted them, Bush still came out slightly ahead. If the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in and said “Enough!”, they would still be counting ballots today in Florida, and still be trying to find some way to twist them in Gore's favor.

The Media Consortium Florida Ballot Project found that if all Florida ballots had been counted using consistent statewide standards, Gore would have won the 2000 election. This was true regardless of what vote counting standard was used.


Review of All Ballots Statewide (Never Undertaken)

Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey, Gore wins by 171 votes

Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore wins by 115 votes.

Any dimples or optical mark, Gore wins by 107 votes.

One corner of chad detached or optical mark, Gore wins by 60 votes.

Recounts are a normal part of the election process. They happen all the time in close elections. The Bush team lied to you in claiming that recounting ballots by hand was somehow cheating.

 

[marksman]

in a state-wide recount, Gore wins, in spite of all the voting problems that have cost him many times more votes than the margin of victory.

Your website says the following:

The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. The recount also showed that had there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush. However, neither campaign requested such a total statewide recount, and it was never formally carried out.​

I don't think we can blame Bush or Florida for Gore not requesting a State-wide recount. Democracy is a system of laws and the laws were followed and Bush won. You might not like it. I might not like it. But 'dems da fax.

And no one could possibly claim that a run-off election, with just the two on the ballot and no Nader, would have resulted in anything but a definitive Gore victory.

Who cares? There's no provision for a run-off election. Holding a run-off election would have been extra-constitutional and thus invalid.

You might as well have said "Nobody could dispute that -- if Jesus reappeared on Earth and caused every registered Democrat and nobody else to either ascend physically into Heaven on a golden chariot or be swallowed up by the earth and tossed into Hell -- Bush would have won."

Bush would have had a very lame presidency if the state-wide recount results had been made clear to the public sooner.

Doubtful. Once the inauguration occurred, the presidency was secure and any lameness was only in the minds of those who dwelt on the past instead of focusing on the future.

 

[Alex Libman]

I don't think we can blame Bush or Florida for Gore not requesting a State-wide recount. Democracy is a system of laws and the laws were followed and Bush won. You might not like it. I might not like it. But 'dems da fax.

Why do you accept that the two candidates were both acting in the interest of winning and results weren't negotiated beforehand? What's your proof? Do you also believe that professional wrestling is real?

 

[marksman]

Why do you accept that the two candidates were both acting in the interest of winning and results weren't negotiated beforehand?

I don't. I accept that the laws were applied as written. Even if Busha nd Gore conspired to cheat Gore out of the Presidency, I don't have a problem with candidates negotiating an outcome amongst themselves, as long as it's consonant with the pre-established rules. That's how parliamentary systems work. It's how the American system worked too, for most of its history.

 

[Brainster]

Al Gore did win in 2000.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-Gore as I am anti-Bush (maybe even more so in light of his global warming bull), but to say that Bush honestly won Florida you have to do all sorts of creative statistics about Buchanan being a super-star in just the precincts with the confusing ballots.

And of course the real reason why Bush didn't win in 2000, which you won't hear from the mainstream media - nobody won Florida. The Supremes decided the election, not the votes.

False, according to the New York Times:

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

If only Florida's electoral votes were invalidated due to voting irregularities, or split evenly based on popular vote, Gore would be president. If there was a full statewide recount or a full re-vote, Gore would be president.

If wishes were horses....

 

[Whiplash]

The Democratic Party should have some advice for Micheal Moore.

"STFU. At least for the next few months anyhow".

 

[jj]

I think an article titled "how to blow it" from one of the least popular, most disagreeable sorts presently visible via media is, well, I'm sorry, it's just too funny for words.

 

[BPSCG]

George Clooney on the other hand gets politics and he knows how best to help a candidate.

Democratic Party insiders have revealed that Clooney and Obama regularly send texts and emails to each other and speak by phone at least twice a week.

One said last night: ‘They are extremely close. A number of members of the Hollywood community, including Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, offered to help raise funds for Barack but it was with George that he struck up this amazing affinity.

‘George has been giving him advice on things such as presentation, public speaking and body language and he also emails him constantly about policy, especially the Middle East.

‘George is pushing him to be more “balanced” on issues such as US relations with Israel.

Doubtless it was Clooney's advice to be "balanced" that led Obama, on news of the Russian invasion of Georgia, to intone, "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint."

'George is pro-Palestinian. And he is also urging Barack to withdraw unconditionally from Iraq if he wins.

‘It’s a very risky relationship. His hope of becoming America’s first black President depends heavily on winning over conservative voters and it would be suicidal for him to be perceived as a tool of a Hollywood Leftie, which is how they regard George.

‘But they text and email each other almost every day and speak on the phone at least a couple of times a week, often more.’

Link

Having George Clooney giving him advice will certainly help Obama rebut the "inexperienced" charge. Maybe President Obama will find a cabinet position for him.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I started dozing about halfway through this thing.

I'm sure someone here will disagree with me, but while Moore unquestionably has talent as a filmmaker, he is a terrible writer. I disagree with his movies but I can see the talent and the humor and respect that. But IMO, his books have been little more than borderline-embarrassing rantings (and I've read three of them).

Doesn't look like this one will be much different.

 

[Brainster]

Doubtless it was Clooney's advice to be "balanced" that led Obama, on news of the Russian invasion of Georgia, to intone, "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint."
Link

Having George Clooney giving him advice will certainly help Obama rebut the "inexperienced" charge.

Not to mention deflecting the "celebrity" claim.

 

[Suddenly]

I started dozing about halfway through this thing.

I'm sure someone here will disagree with me, but while Moore unquestionably has talent as a filmmaker, he is a terrible writer. I disagree with his movies but I can see the talent and the humor and respect that. But IMO, his books have been little more than borderline-embarrassing rantings (and I've read three of them).

Doesn't look like this one will be much different.

When he sticks to blue collar labor class type issues he's not bad. When he strays from that he's cover-your-eyes awful. It is a shame he doesn't stick to his strengths, he is a pretty good voice for the working poor. However, he wants to be some sort of liberal icon and doesn't realize his limited understanding of other issues...

 

[moon1969]

Didn"t Christopher Hitchens proove that Michael Moore is a liar? Christopher Hitchens exposed Moore as a liar.

 

[Donal]

Ugh, what a condescending, obnoxious jerk. And he knows nothing about winning an election.

Does he really think the Dems will win without a balanced ticket? Thats the only reason they didn't get blown out of the last two elections. Obama doesn't need another far left running mate to electrify the base. they are the base. They are already electrified. As long as he doesn't take Cheney, the base will support him.

Taking a far left running mate will scare off the moderates.

The whole rant is full of misinformation and crying. Aww, poor little Mikey mad he's not getting a luxury box next to Obama in Denver?

As the party hacks in the past two elections have proven, once they get the candidate's ear, the rest of us might just as well order pizza and stay inside for the next four years.

anybody want to field that one?